Constitutional Court

KI83/19 Applicant: Nikolaj Škljarenko, constitutional review of Judgment GSK-KPA-A-222/2015 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 20 September 2018

KI83/19, resolution on inadmissibility of 11 March 2020, published on 6 April 2020 

Keywords: individual referral, constitutional review of the challenged Judgment of the  Supreme Court, manifestly ill-founded

The circumstances of the present case include a property dispute, related to a property which was sold by the Applicant in 1999. The Applicant alleges that, due to the political circumstances created in Kosovo in 1998-1999, he sold the property under threat and below the market value of the respective property.

In 2006, he initiated legal proceedings, requesting that the Contract of 1999 be declared invalid, complaining first to the Kosovo Property Claims Commission and then to the Supreme Court. Both decided against the Applicant, stating that the Applicant (i) failed to prove that he has ownership of the disputed property; (ii) that the circumstances of the alienation of his property do not relate to the circumstances created in Kosovo in 1998-1999 and, consequently, they do not fall within the period specified by the Kosovo Property Claims Commission under applicable law; and furthermore (iii) the evidence of the case does not support the possibility that the Contract was entered into under the threat. The Applicant challenges these findings before the Court, alleging, in essence, a violation of Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, due to non-reasoning of the Decision of the Kosovo Property Claims Commission and that of the Supreme Court, as well as violation of Article 46 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, related to his property rights.

The Court dealt with the Applicant’s allegations, applying the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, pursuant to which the Court, under Article 53 [Interpretation of Human Rights Provisions] of the Constitution is obliged to interpret the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Court found the Applicant’s allegations regarding violations of Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the lack of a reasoned court decision, the Court declared them inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, because the Supreme Court (i) had explained in detail, in support of the Decision of the Kosovo Property Claims Commission, that the Applicant’s circumstances do not fall within the jurisdiction of the KPCC because they do not relate to the time period specified by the applicable law, namely 27 February 1998 and 20 June 1999; and (ii) addressed and reasoned the Applicant’s allegations related to the possibility of entering into the relevant Contract under threat, rejecting the latter on the basis of relevant evidence. The Court did the same with regard to the allegations of the Applicant of violation of Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the non-review of his evidence.

Finally, and with regard to the allegations of violation of Article 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 1 (Protection of Property) of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court held that unreasoned and unsubstantiated allegations with arguments and evidence, based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, are declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

Therefore, the Court declared the Referral inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, in accordance with Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 47 of the Law and Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.